Fujifilm X-A10 sample gallery

At $500 with a kit lens, the Fujifilm X-A10 represents the least expensive entry point to the company's X-system. Like its fellow A-series siblings it uses a traditional bayer filter rather than X-Trans, and though it lacks a touch screen or option for optical viewfinder, it does provide an impressive 410-shot battery life.

While it may be overlooked by Fujifilm fans seeking a robust body or better tracking autofocus, it looks plenty tempting if you're on a budget and swayed by Fujifilm's lovely JPEGs. We brought it along on a recent trip to Jackson Hole, Wyoming – take a look at how this light and compact ILC performed.

Comments

I hope the X-A10's successor comes out smaller than it is now. The X-A10 is not too attractive to entice new customers. It looks fat and dum, and the advantages over the X-A5 are only price. I purchased the X-A10 a few months ago and return it as soon as I saw the figure. I really expect to meet the compact design like the X70 to the successor of the X-A10.

I expect any random doofus who knows even half a tin can about photography will do quite alright by this nice little camera. It's just harder for me personally, what with being only half a doofus. But that of course is a different story!

Clearing a few things up. 1) X-A10 is APSC not MFT2) theoretically on-sensor PDAF would reduce IQ because these PD pixels don't contribute to the final image so it's purely interpolated data at those possitions. In reality, I doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference. CDAF and off-sensor PDAF have no bearing on IQ other than their ability to aquire focus.3) CDAF by definition, require contrast so low light or flat light makes it difficult to aquire focus. However, it can be more accurate than (off sensor) PDAF and doesn't require the user to calibrate every lens.4) CDAF trades speed for accuracy. Even in good light it can be slower than PDAF but as long as it locks on, it will be pin sharp (excluding motion blur, limit of the lens resolution, diffraction at small apertures)

@digifan Well, that's surprising, because my camera (A7Rii) switches from on-sensor PDAF to CDAF when you close down beyond f8, and it takes much longer to acquire focus, especially in low contrast conditions. You can even force the camera to stick with CDAF across apertures. I can guarantee you that it's slower and less reliable.

I quit letting reviews influence my decisions a long time ago. For one, you have people that write postive reviews who are either fanboys or paid reviewers and then of course you have people that write negative reviews because they do not how to properly use the product. I do enjoy dpreview, but I never let their reviews determine which camera I purchase. I find most of the time that my experience with a camera is quite different from theirs and often their sample galleries are shockingly different from when I use the camera myself.

"you have people that write postive reviews who are either fanboys or paid reviewers and then of course you have people that write negative reviews because they do not how to properly use the product."

X-trans better/Jpeg better/Composition/etc These are not bad things to have in a conversation nor something to be cynical about, it's straight forward OPINION SHARING, which is what the internet and DPR give us for FREE, to write, read or not. It's called FREEDOM.

You people (sorry if it sounds racist) from the west, or wherever freedom of speech is secured, have no idea how it means to others, and how it's something we're still, to this day in 2017 are fighting for. Fighting to simply freely share our opinions on facebook without fear of criminal jurisdiction. You come here, on boards such as DPR, and it's FREE, not only of money no, but also of hand-tying authority.

You come to see all those opinions, both sides, the good and the bad, and you make up your own mind. And reviews are guides, to help YOU make up YOUR own mind, nothing more. If it's forcing an "opinion" on you, then move on to another one...

@Ebrahim Saadawi What is the methods to check the details? By laptop? Macbook? Have you ever printed it ? I already tried to printed in large scale (150cm x 100cm) just from jpeg file then there's details showed that you said before, unforgivable? I know because i use it to my family and printed on Professional Glossy photo paper (not inkjet neither digital print).

The detail level is abysmal. The entire resolution is on par with a camera mounted on a Nokia phone (not even the new state-of-the-art phones).

However all the other aspects of the image are very good, and even excellent when it comes to colour. The tonal range both luminance and chrominance are vast, the images are very alive when viewed on a Phone or an iPad. So if the output it for that, I think this is good enough.

I don't know what to think. The images look great, but when you check the detail, it's just unforgivable. The sharpeining algorithm is crushing, both radius and amount, just crushing.

The detail level on this Monet painting is abysmal. From afar, it's absolutely gorgeous. He brilliantly captures the spirit and the mood of the scene. But upclose, it's just a big old mess. Swirls of paint that have no business being next to each other and there is absolutely no order to his brush strokes. I don't know what to think. The painting looks great, but when you check the detail, it's just unforgivable.

I only bring this up because this is how you should always look at a painting. Put your nose up against it and critique with magnifying glass in hand. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever stand back to appreciate work of art as a whole. No matter how beautiful it looks!

BUT, when you can have an identical painting yet with higher detail, why wouldn't you? It's just better. And there are much higher detail cameras that can produce this "painting" just in higher detail on inspection, including cameras from Fuji. That's where the critisizm comes from.

But agreed. As a when we take a step back and don't inspect the details, this camera certainly seems to produce uniquely good images. It can be used or most applications in today's web-based world.

You are no doubt a screen pixel peeker and that's fine, but for us who actually print large, they should come out fine. I've shot many landscape images with my dslr's and at 100% they show lots of fine detail, but that fly's out the window when it comes to printing out to 16x20 or 20x30 when compared to my m4/3 cams. Standing 6' away one cannot see any lack of detail.

Rick,That's a typical distance a person views a large poster in a gallery or home. Fine detail is much more visible on a digital screen vs a print on whatever kind of paper from any online print shop or my Canon imagePrograff 1000 (excellent printer). Thanks, but I'll leave the cell phone images to you.

Ahh, little cyber Ricky has gone all nasty. Medium format! Wow, impressive..but only by you. My photo books and prints will be around for ages and seen by many while your's are but a piece of data that's forgotten on the cloud.

How often you would use pixel peeping for job? Have you ever print it yet? Try a shot, good shot and printed it on Glossy Photo Paper at least 24R. I tried on 150cm x 100cm Professional Photo Paper jpeg and sooc using this camera and its kit lens, its too good one with its price.

Hate to be critical here, but if you're going to post sample images, post ones that somewhat represent good composition.... beautiful mountains, but a poorly composed shot I must say. Those darn trees in the right side (all blurred and take up 1/3 of the frame) are distracting. Yes it probably creates depth, but it's distracting. JMO. Otherwise, I'm impressed so far.

I'm not sure this is as easy as just implementing in the next revision/camera. I think it has much to do with the sensor (and possibly the image processor too). For a long time, Nikons had a native resolution of ISO 200 a sthe lowest possible resolution so I think it goes beyond what is obvious to us users, what it takes to get to ISO 100 as a base/native ISO.

yep, it's a sensor issue, but it isnt something that can't be done. All of other manufacturers (except m43 guys) have a ISO100 on their crop cameras, and most of them, just like Fuji - have sensor out of the Sony factories.

Take in to account the noise reduction algorithms too. I mean, the lower the ISO the cleaner the image, but honestly unless a camera has really bad noise reduction control, I don't think you'd see much of a difference (when looking just as ISO alone) between ISO 100 and ISO 200, other than it's a 1-stop difference. But from an IQ standpoint, I would think that most probably wouldn't notice the difference with today's imaging technology. Where we should be concerned more (especially with mirrorless) is high ISO performance, and I'll be honest, once you start getting up to around ISO 800 or 1600 on the XT-2, that's when things start to get noisy (at least for my tastes).

That depends who you ask. I never go over ISO800 and anything above that is useless for me.Halving ISO allows 2 times more light to hit the sensor (2 times more information) before sensor clips highlights. It isn't visible on JPEGS, but when you start playing with RAWs its more than visible.

Yep. Had an X100S. I then bought a Sigma DP2M to see what the hype was all about. When I saw what was possible with 15mp, I couldn't enjoy my X100S anymore. Also the skin tones from X-Trans are often weird.

That said, the straight-out-of-the-camera JPEGs are probably the most pleasing I ever had. I almost never felt a need to shoot raw or do any processing other than cropping. So as long as you don't view at 100%, if you don't want to fuss with raw or pp, these cameras should be considered.

Edit - I see now that this camera has a Bayer sensor, so my comment is mostly off-topic but still true. As for this camera, the 100% view is not good, but Fuji sure does know how to produce a pleasing in-cam JPEG!

After shooting a variety of Fuji cameras - to include both X-Trans and Bayer models - I personally enjoy the Bayer IQ renditions better. But for the moment, Fuji has relegated the Bayer sensors to their entry level versions such as the X-A series, and from what I heard, the pending (future) X-T100 series (in an X-T10/20 body type).

Would love for them to release more advanced versions with the Bayer sensor, but Fuji has their game plan in hand and for the time being, the Bayer versions are relegated to what it is.

X-Trans is Fuji's marketing hype and actually it renders colours strangely unnaturaly compared to Bayer's. If it was that much better then Bayer cfa, GFX should have it. Fuji made a few big mistakes including last X-E3 announcement that has no tilt LCD in 2018, that got tiny EVF from X-30 with x0.62 magnification and worse eye point then X-E2 and has terribly narrow eyepiece without eyecup - truly a 'point-and-shot' type, and Fuji also ditched 5 Fn buttons that were so important for direct and fast access to features/settings and brought instead touched LCD that slow shooting. It's not XE-2 successor at all but a cam for "smartphone' users who love to play with LCD and shot with LCD. And native 200iso in 2018 is a joke. Not saying about 2/3-1 EV iso cheating.

X-Trans unlike old SuperCCD is dead end of development. It can sorta work with super-high res sensor, but I doubt they will make that (it would need roughly 50 mix and more). Also key would be in demosaicing that would in fact reduce mpix quite a bit (on other hand due special nature of X-trans, it would provide other benefits).

In current form its just being different for sake of being different.

Fuji does nice cameras, but if they went back to Bayer for all, they might actually gain some customers. :D

Its not like Bayer is really superior, there are other ideas that could be explored, just X-trans quite apparently isnt one of them. On other hand, going further back to Super-CCD with today tech would be pretty good idea (paired with this day CMOS it could do most likely 14 or 16 eV DR in one shot, based on output bit depth and ofc internal electronics).

Not true ISO 200. Fuji cheats ISO, like it has since forever. Their 24MP sensors are based off the same ones from the Sony A6300 and A6500, which start at 100. Same with their old 16MP sensors, based off the Sony NEX series 16MP sensors that started at 100.

Subjectively speaking this is why I like the X Trans sensor much more than dated Bayer technology. My 16mp XT10 more often than not delivers better looking images than my FF camera (which has a much larger sensor). I know the X Trans sensor is very controversial with some people, but the colors, tones, and details are all incredible to my eyes.

"...better looking images ..." , possibly, because that is subjective, but better images, no, not upon closer inspection. My Canon point and shoot has "better looking" pictures than earlier Nikon DSLR's because the Nikon had bad color accuracy.

Seems like that BIG FF CAMERA is too much for you :).It's OK. No worries. Some people prefer a fresh juicy piece of RAW meat and cook it perfectly to their taste, while others don't. They'd rather be killing themselves with a fast food diet, than take care of their own stomachs. Well, that's life. And it's fair more often than not.

It's not even a different technology, just a different layout of the colour filter array, and therefore a different interpolation algorithm is required to demosaic the raw files. Same technology done differently.

I personally like xTrans .... but the hype is just hype, and the marketing and fan (or anit-fun) boys make a too much big deal out of it.

I have an old canon, and old xTrans, and a newer m43 camera ... the truth is that if i shoot today (and edit the RAWs in LR) with my 7-9 years old APS-C Canon, the result (to my eyes, at pixel-peeping level) look still better than the images shot with the "modern" and much praised by the fan-boys M43 sensor.In the same way (pixel-peeping details), i find the my xTrans (i have an X-E1) better than my old canon (it is a newer sensor, slightly larger sensor 1.5 vs 1.6 in canon, not a big surprise) ...

On the other side, setting the jpeg engine to my taste, the little m43 olympus outputs the best looking JPEGs in natural light ... better that the fuji, better then more modern canon DSLRs i tried...

In the end it really matters what you want, what you need and what different tools offer to you, not to blindly believe marketing, and forum fan-boys...

ecka84: I shot raw for years and still do. That being said I enjoy shooting more than post processing and the Fuji JPEG engine is really hard to beat. That is not a "fast food diet", that is an advancement in technology. MY FF camera is Canon, and the Fuji has much better dynamic range, color, and tones. The only place Canon beats it is at the very highest of ISOs, that being said people often point out how incredibly better the Fuji images look by comparison. Fuji is the only camera manufacturer that convinced me you don't need FF.

Petak: Most people use gasoline engines in their cars, does that means it's better technology compared to alternatives such as electric ? It's used by 99% of the market simply due to convenience. There has been a number of demosaic algorithms on the market for years that are well respected for delivering better results compared to Bayer, but sometimes it is easier to stay the course instead of moving forward.

badi: I don't following the marketing myself, just my own experiences. If X-TRANS is nothing but hype, i guess I have bought into it. I am (or was) a bit of gear head changing systems on a yearly basis (not a good idea btw). I went from Nikon Crop to Canon Crop, Canon Crop to Olympus m43rds, Olympus to Sony Crop, Sony Crop to Canon FF, Canon FF to Sony FF and then went to Fuji 2 years ago and decided to pick up a used Canon FF that I rarely use. Fuji is the only camera that has made me stay the course. I admit all cameras are good and capable, but Fuji is *really* consistent in the image making dept, more so than any brand I have ever owned. It's also one of the only brands that I have ever used that even after 2 years still makes my draw drop when I review images on my Mac. I can't recommend Fuji highly enough, they are not perfect by any measure, but they do stand out from the rest of the crowd.

@LV-426Well, dynamic range and sensor size are like entirely different dimensions. You cannot trade one for another. Canon has less data in the shadows, but larger sensors will always have some advantages over the smaller ones. Most people do not understand what the "image quality" actually means. Which is why there is so much nonsense, confusion, superstitions and pseudo-science floating around. Nicer color (or the color you prefer) has nothing to do with image quality. Only the CORRECT color has any value, while most of it is about the amount of correct information in the image.IMHO, Canon has better color and tones by default, but I think it is possible to calibrate whatever camera to produce what you want. So it doesn't really matter, because different people prefer different color profiles. Not all fast food is bad for you, but ... let's be reasonable.

P.S. Weird thing is that Apple people and Fuji people are often the same people :). There's something suspicious about that :)

Yes, if 99% of the people use gasoline cars that means internal combustion in its current state of développement Is perceived by most people as the "better" (whatever that means for each one of them individually) technology. If 99% of the people perceive one technology as better than the other it means it is.

Petak - Well said. It is what I have been trying to say on this forum about products for some time. It is sometimes called confirmation by consensus.A sample of 1, one persons experience, does not much in totality.

Petak wrote: "Yes, if 99% of the people use gasoline cars that means internal combustion in its current state of développement Is perceived by most people as the "better" (whatever that means for each one of them individually) technology."

No, some people can't afford what they believe to be the best technology. For other people, the lack of a charging station at their apartment complex, forces them to choose an internal combustion vehicle -- even though they perceive EVs to be a superior drivetrain technology.

Petak wrote: "If 99% of the people perceive one technology as better than the other it means it is."

@LV-426: About the color issue: there are at least 2 very basic things (for a given base sensor)

1 - the RGB filter (not matter if it is bayer, xTrans or other). It can (and usually is) tuned for a client (that is one of the main things in the "designed by nikon sony sensors" thing). It can have stronger colors (stronger filter and perfect separation between colors) - which will render colors more accurately, but this will block more light, so it will affect high iso performance. Or the other way around. Also the colors themselves can be tuned for certain look.

This is (i think) the main difference between manufacturer-colors. It is a very core difference, and that is why there is no easy way to tune in raw editing software the colors of one camera to match perfectly the colors from another. It can be done for an image, but applying the same recipe to another will not work.

and 2 - the RAW encoding.It is said to be that at the raw level there is saved the "exact" color value read by the pixel. However that is rather a metaphor. In reality all manufacturers already make some software computation at this level, to correct some issues in the sensor color filter (maybe boost some specific colors), reduce some noise (pretty obvious for Fuji, for example), and so on. This will also result in differences that even using the same raw editor will not give the same results.

[edit]@LV-426: well... it seems that until i finished my thesis, you removed the part about the color from your comment... anyway i let it here, since it was fun writing it :))

@LV-426I'm not talking about the artistic quality or beauty. If an image looks much nicer than reality, then most likely it is a fake representation. There's nothing wrong with that. Fantasies can be just as valuable as documentary. But it has nothing to do with the actual image quality.Images from Hubble telescope can be tweaked to show more scientifically relevant data, or just to look nice. There's a difference. If you don't care about the data, then why do you care about the DR at all? Artists like noise. They adore it. Don't they/you? :)) There's a special "add noise" slider in Lightroom for them. It's funny and weird, I know :D

fmaxwell: "No, some people can't afford what they believe to be the best technology. For other people, the lack of a charging station at their apartment complex, forces them to choose an internal combustion vehicle -- even though they perceive EVs to be a superior drivetrain technology."

I would very much like to know what forces people not to use X trans cameras - most certainly not price or unavailability? But I will play along anyway. I have a simple!e question: If you need to go somewhere and you have an internal combustion engine vehicle and an electric one that you can not charge, which one is better for you? .

fmaxwell: "That is the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Popularity."

It is a fallacy if you use it as an argument to prove facts that might be objectively measured or proved. Something being "better" is completely abstract and subjective. If the original poster had referred to objective criteria such as resolution, dynamic range etc. than using popular opinion as an argument against hard data would be fallacy. But he used "better" instead.

@Petak:"If you need to go somewhere and you have an internal combustion engine vehicle and an electric one that you can not charge, which one is better for you? "

A better technology for a specific circumstance doesn't mean that it's a "better...technology" overall. When someone trades in a Honda Civic for a Nissan Leaf, is the Civic's technology better on the way to the dealership and the Leaf's better one on the way home?

"It is a fallacy if you use it as an argument to prove facts that might be objectively measured or proved. Something being "better" is completely abstract and subjective. "

It's fallacy if cited as proof of a subjective quality such as "better." Suppose you had written any of the following:

"That's a more popular menu item, so therefore it tastes better.""That speaker is more popular, proving that it sounds better.""Most amps we sell use bipolar transistors, so that's a better technology than MOSFETs."

@fmaxwell - Taste, sound, and better technology or single person subjective and biased Some of these things can be measured, but the instrument that measures them and determines better cannot be put into our head.A single person determines what is "better" for that person accordion to his or her biases.Consensus by a large population determines what is "better" for that populationThe population serves as a filter: Only the best drops thru the filter.Look up surveys done on the best cameras, cellphones, cars, speakers, and hamburgers in the US. You will find Canon and Nikon,, Toyota and Honda, the top two in speakers vary more often, you will not find McDonalds in the top ten.

@MyReality: "The population serves as a filter: Only the best drops thru the filter. Look up surveys done on the best cameras, cellphones, cars, speakers, and hamburgers in the US. You will find Canon and Nikon,, Toyota and Honda..."

Most of what falls through the filter is what's affordable, practical, inoffensive, and a good value for the money. Ask Toyota and Honda drivers what their dream car is and I bet that you find it's seldom the car, or even brand of car, they drive right now.

"...the top two in speakers vary more often..."

That's because most consumers are idiots when it comes to evaluating audio. Some of the most popular speakers sound atrocious and some of the finest are all-but-unknown to the unwashed masses at Best Buy.

"...you will not find McDonalds in the top ten."

And, yet, McDonalds probably sells more meals than any other restaurant chain, which disproves the theory that one can determine what's "better" based on what it the most purchased.

@fmaxwell - What falls thru the filter is also what has the lowest failure rate. It does not matter if the product contains the latest tech, if the failure rate is high enough it will stay near the bottom. There are exceptions to every rule, but a large population minimizes those. Failure rate and the criteria that you mention above determine what the "best" product is for the population.

What YOU say is the best product, may or may not be the "best, depends on the product. Everyone thinks what they have is the "best". Canon does not design cameras for one person, they design for maybe, 1 million people.

The best tasting hamburger is not determined by most purchased, but by a taste test.

"What falls thru the filter is also what has the lowest failure rate."

The J.D. Power 2017 Dependability Ratings & Awards for 3-year-old vehicles ranks Lexus and Porsche the most reliable brands. Honda is ninth. The most reliable small car is the 2014 Chevrolet Sonic.

"Failure rate and the criteria that you mention above determine what the "best" product is for the population."

All that reliability does for an disappointing product is allow it to disappoint for longer.

"Everyone thinks what they have is the "best"."

I'm an engineer and I objectively evaluate products that I can't justify buying for myself. My ego isn't tied up in what products I own.

"The best tasting hamburger is not determined by most purchased, but by a taste test."

That's my point: The most purchased product is seldom the "best" based on any rational objective or subjective criteria. People don't buy McDonalds hamburgers because they are the best. They buy them because they are convenient and cheap.

i had a nice reading on the debate :)You should stop to the hamburger comparison, which outlines the case best, on which you both agree but still have different opinions, somehow ... - best tasting sandwich is decided by a taste test, preferably conducted by a reliable jury (a large number of chefs, food critiques, etc) right ... aka: an objective evaluation by experts.- "top sellers" and "most popular" stats are not directly related to the quality, but to other things (that include quality, of course) - marketing, availability, affordability, price/quality ratio, etc

Basically this is the principle applied in all areas. If i call xTrans "best" it is just an opinion - not a hard fact. It might be, it might be not... but the fact that it is popular or not is not a measure of that.

@badi: You wrote: " "top sellers" and "most popular" stats are not directly related to the quality, but to other things (that include quality, of course) - marketing, availability, affordability, price/quality ratio, etc"

On that we fully agree. The notion that sales/popularity is a measure of the technical merits of a camera sensor technology is a classic Appeal to Populism fallacy.

Almost 40 years ago, when I was in high school, I had a job selling home and car stereo equipment at an electronics store. I was horrified at the lack of technical knowledge that most customers had, their disinterest in learning, and the bases on which they made their purchase decisions. That pretty much cured me of believing that consumers made informed, logical decisions based on the technical merits of products.

@fmaxwell - I should have mentioned consumer reports, which accepts no advertising and I was talking about long term trends, not one year ranking.

The "taste" of a car is driving over a long period of time, which also measures reliability. Reliability maybe the most important criteria with regards to purchasing that product again.

As an engineer you may know about steel tension tests and concrete compression tests done in a lab. The final test is when they are used in a bridge and people drive over them, similar to when some uses are camera or car. Too high of a failure rate, and those products will not make it thru the filter and be used again.

@MyReality: I know about statistics, which is why I scoff at the idea of a consumer who might own a dozen cars in his lifetime coming to a conclusion about the reliability of a brand or model. They don't have a statistically significant sample set on which to base a conclusion. Many have no idea that their VW Routan was a re-badged Dodge Caravan or their Saab 9-2X was a Subaru Impreza.

While I applaud Consumer Reports for gathering larger sample sets, even those are fraught with problems due to consumer expectations and the self-selecting nature of the participants. A squeaking sound in the suspension of a minivan might be ignored by most owners while a similar sound might cause an owner of a Porsche to make four trips back to the dealer to get it fixed.

The thorough understanding of the characteristics of steel alloys combined with computer modeling and safety factors make it structural failures of steel in bridges all but non-existent. And for that, all motorists should be glad. :)

@fmaxwell - Interesting. I did not know that about the VW Routan or the Saab 9-2X. I do not keep up with rebadging of products. I liked Saabs when they were a Swedish company, Ford destroyed it when they had control. VW has shown that they are willing to go to extremes to increase profit margin. I used to work in engineering and have seen contractors go out on a limb to try to increase their profit margins.

@MyReality -- I agree with you that Ford destroyed Saab. They took everything that was quirky and appealing about Saab cars and tried to make them into cookie-cutter cars without personality.

If VW didn't own Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, SEAT, and Škoda, I don't know that they would survive their diesel scandal. It's infuriating, because their actions will tarnish the reputation of diesel passenger cars for decades, just as GM's diesel fiasco in the 1970s did.

If you guys want it cheaper, just get a Fujifilm X-A1, the A10 shouldn't be really (much) different - it's the same 16 MP Bayer APS-C Sensor.

One also can get as Alternative the X-A2 way cheap, the Dials here are made out of Aluminium, instead of the all-plastic build quality from X-A1(0).

I've seen the A1 for as low as around 100 bucks, but personally, dislike the "plasticky" build quality. My entry is (and was) into the Fujifilm X-System - the Fujifilm X-E1, with 16 MP & X-Trans Sensor (CFA).

I've read rumors onto Fuji Rumors, that Fujifilm would release possibly a X-T100 called X-T20, should be the same, but with (just) ordinary Bayer CFA, not X-Trans System, and not (partial) Alu-Magnesium Body.

It could be 100-200 bucks less - but i'd go for a mint-like X-T10 instead of a shiny new X-T100....then. Build quality and haptics matters for me - the Pixels, not so much. 16 MP is way over the top what i do personally need, i am way fine with 12 MP...but your milage may vary. :-)

Yeah, same thoughts here, except half the posters in this particular thread also sound like the peeps who write the Nigerian email scams.

Years ago I suggested to someone I know that they buy the X-M1 ( my own first foray into the X-series ). Just recently, they came to me and said that they weren't happy with the camera because they couldn't see the LCD in bright light and there were those " irritating grid lines " all over it.

Imagine the person's surprise when I turned the LCD brightness feature to sunlight mode and deactivated the grid lines on the menu setting.

The biggest laugh for me was the look on this person's face when I pulled the screen away from the body and tilted it up and down to demonstrate different viewing angles. They didn't know it could do that.

Unfortunately, there are people like that who write reviews on things they don't understand and haven't bothered to research.

Arguably, most people in the target market for an entry-level camera like this, will only look at the images on a smartphone, since social media is where all their images will be displayed. And in that case, how the images look when pixel-peeping them on a "proper" computer, doesn't matter much at all.

I'm pretty certain the problem is with the specific lens being used for these images.The outdoor scenes being shot in good daylight are substandard.I compared them to my forest scenes taken with a small sensor Olympus XZ-2, by upsizing my 12MP images to the Fuji's 16MP. My images were better, sharper with more details.However I'm guessing that with better glass and in more challenging conditions, the fuji with it's larger sensor will deliver better results.

It's definitly not the lens. Of course it can't give you edge to edge sharpness, but at least the frame center is very good with this lens.Just compared the images of my X-T10 with 16-50mm lens in a quite similar nature setting and it is just no comparison. The JPEG's of the 16MP X-Trans sensor are so much better.

And look at the ISO 6400 shots! Maybe only on a 5" smartphone screen they look ok. But on my 23" screen I can see that the image quality is garbage, even without 1:1 magnification.

That's smartphone image quality what Fujifilm is trying to sell us here!

X-Trans renders colour differently then Bayer that look more natural. X-Trans renders colours artificialy with "digital" feel. That's why I have never liked landscapes taken with X-Trans, they look like made in computer though many like its unnatural look. If I had to choose Fuji for landcape I wold buy X-A2/3 with 18/2, 35/1.4, 60/2.4 and 90/2 (best fuji primes with the "soul") or Touits. Or GFX.

Opposite way around guys...bayer feels digital while X-trans more natural...Stop stealing my sayings...I was one of the first to say bayer "more digital" then you guys twist it falsely the other way...

@webber 15 - If "natural" means smearing and less defined, I agree. I did not say more digital, I said what is was and was not good for. Check out what Ken Rockwell has to say about the X-trans sensor.

@weber15 - Do a side-be-side comparison between the two at large magnification or large print size. This is what Ken Rockwell did. Or maybe you are just inclined to believe whatever you want to believe(dogmatic).That was a dumb thing to say about samples, they do not provide everything, but they provide something.I never look at pictures, because they don't show anything. ---What?

Already said...I like the output of X-trans - especially jpegs...the images I've captured with my Xpro2 and xf100-400 exceed my satisfaction over any camera/system I've owned before... This includes Oly and Pentax with a 300mm f4...

Btw...the samples "mean nothing" to me because they can be altered to taste either in camera or through the raw file...

@PhotoUniverse that's my only complaint and even then it's entirely my personal opinion and nothing more. There's many amazing cameras I don't buy. I just currently prefer a Lightroom only workflow. I know the files are compatible but to get the most out of them I'd need other software.

I think if you're not taking pictures of people or landscapes with the X-T2 you're OK. I do agree that the X-Trans does render skin tones in a bit of an unnatural way (which I why I don't shoot landscapes or portraits with mine; mainly architecture, street, etc). but the X-T2 is excellent for street and travel with its smaller size (not quite as small as the Sony a6000-series) but offers a lot of the key features of a higher-grade (even mid-range DSLR) camera. I mainly got mine for its size, weight, and capabilities (I did not really look int othe sensor technology [x-Trans vs Bayer] used as that wasn't that important to me for what I intended to use it for).

The out-of-camera-jpegs are absolutly awful, can't understand the positive comments. Colors are not bad, but very clumpy details. That is what I already noticed with the other X-A cameras, but the X-A10 is particularly worse. No comparison to the X-Trans sensor.

The weird thing is, that Fujifilm can do it much better. The first X100 uses a 12MP Bayer sensor and the out-of-camera-jpegs are just amazing. Like I would develop it in Lightroom.

Maybe they use a much slower processor in the X-A series, which can't provide enough processing power for better JPEG's.

My speculation, also. I have yet to see an image taken through the XC 16-50 lens — by anybody, mounted on any Fujifilm body with any sensor — that I would be proud to show off from a technical standpoint.

Keep in mind the price point Fuji is trying to go for here. They are offering the A10 for $500 with a kit lens (which is probably worth $100 itself, so $400 for the body). Thinking about retail and profits, that means that the reseller probably buys them from Fuji for $350-400, and Fuji's costs are probably in the $250-300 range for the body. Since I think they are targeting those looking at cost probably slightly more than IQ, there are sacrifices to be made, especially when the camera can only cost perhaps $250-300 to manufacturer. I would expect other Fuji models, like the XT20 and X-T2 to produce better results as those cameras cost more and thus better materials can be used in them. I feel it all pretty much comes down to cost and what the target market is willing to sacrifice on. I think they also wanted to target beginners or photojournalists. And as said before, a lot of it could have been due to the lens that was used for the samples.

Those full height adds on the right side, the ones that knock the Details off the browser frame, are horrible. I'll allow that income is needed, but stay with half height ads. I won't scroll below the full ads (that are on the majority of the images) to read the image details. I quit viewing the gallery.

" it looks plenty tempting if you're on a budget and swayed by Fujifilm's lovely JPEGs"

And yet, the image you show above is one that was NOT an OOC JPEG, but edited to taste. ;-) Actually, Fuji's accurately-modeling-film too-contrasty JPEGs are among the things I like least about Fujis....

Never used the lens, but this copy at least appears to be a bit decentered. Looking at many of the landscape shots, they are significantly less sharp on the right hand side, even when the lens is stopped down. In some cases it's really quite strong - seems worst around the 28mm mark. Shot number one exhibits this quite badly. It may just be this copy, but this is a bit disappointing from Fuji. Canon's 18-55s don't seem to suffer from decentering very often based on the ones I have used, and the latest one is really quite sharp (I'm no Canon fanboy BTW). But no-they don't start at 16mm. Not something that bothers me personally as I prefer more at the long end.

Impressive.. I’like what I see..I am on my third X-Trans body.. and have to give it to the bayer sensor used here: even the higher ISO jpeg files look very decent.I wonder what using the more expensive lenses would get you.Fuji has some excellent glas.

Some of the OOC images are very faded, while others have an overly steep contrast curve ... these you usually showed fixed versions edited later together with the original. Most of the others are fine. I'm wondering why some photos came OOC desaturated and others not. Did you change the film mode or otherwise change the settings, or does the camera make these decisions on the fly shot-to-shot?

It's an animatronic orangutan with a built-in camera used for nature documentaries. John Downer Productions was showing it off during the Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival and I couldn't help but take a photo. You can read more about it here.

It does, that's true. The issue is the way is manages the X-Trans files is a bit odd. I know there are options before Lightroom like Iridient but I love to simplicity of being able to get the most out of my images by just using one piece of software.

ZeBebiteo: and I prefer the 16MP to the current 24mp sensor results.. I would gladly upgrade to get better AF but they are not for me. I sold my X-Pro2 and am hanging in there with an X-T10 I like a lot.I wonder where the bayer sensors will take things with Fuji.I‘d lve to see them in more fully featured bodies.

Well that's interesting. I didn't know it was Bayer. Just looked at the gallery and especially at the greens/trees which usually lack detail on X-Trans. I just thought: Wow, did ACR finally got that far to resolve this amount of detail?

This is an issue of the RAW converter. Iridient resolves much better detail with X-trans. Think about it- Xtrans has more green photosites which is what both Bayer and Xtrans use for detecting more of the luminance detail of the signal (the reason why both color filter arrays have more Green than any other color- because we humans are more sensitive to green for detail also).

Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Professional commercial photographer Moe Lauchert shares an incredible gallery of film photographs he captured on Ilford HP5 with a Nikonos 5 while serving as a diver at NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory in Houston, Texas.

We've been shooting with a beta version of the Sony a9's upcoming firmware 5.0. While there's much more analysis to come, we can say it makes for a dead simple AF tracking user experience. Take a look at some of our samples.

The Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4 is a compact and light-weight lens for full-frame Canon and Nikon DSLRs. We took it on grand tour of Seattle's top tourist spots and found it makes a pleasant, albeit wide, walking around lens.

Fujifilm has announced its new GF 100-200mm F5.6 R LM OIS WR tele-zoom lens. The lens, equivalent to 79-158mm when mounted on a GFX camera, has image stabilization (with a claimed 5 stops of shake reduction), a linear AF motor and weather-sealing.

Amongst all of the camera news yesterday, Sony also announced its new Imaging Edge mobile app, which replaces PlayMemories Mobile. Three desktop applications have also been updated, adding support for time-lapse movie creation.

Our intrepid team is in San Diego, for the launch of the new Sony a6400. In this short overview video, Carey, Chris and Jordan talk through the main specifications of the new camera, and what they might mean for photographers and videographers.

The Sony a6400 is the company's new midrange mirrorless camera, whose standout features include an advanced autofocus system, flip-up touchscreen LCD and oversampled 4K footage with Log support. Learn more as we go hands-on with the a6400.

Sony has announced major firmware updates for the a7R III, a7 III and a9. All three cameras gain improved Eye-AF, the ability to recognize and focus on animals' eyes, and timelapse capability. The a9 gets more sophisticated subject tracking.